Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: recent triumphs and remaining challenges

References

• Harper JC, Sengupta SB. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: state of the art 2011. Hum. Genet.131(2), 175–186 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harton G, Braude P, Lashwood A et al.; European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) PGD Consortium. ESHRE PGD Consortium best practice guidelines for organization of a PGD centre for PGD/preimplantation genetic screening. Hum. Reprod.26(1), 14–24 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harper JC, Coonen E, De Rycke M et al. ESHRE PGD Consortium data collection X: cycles from January to December 2007 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2008. Hum. Reprod.25(11), 2685–2707 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harper JC, Wilton L, Traeger-Synodinos J et al. The ESHRE PGD Consortium: 10 years of data collection. Hum. Reprod. Update.18(3), 234–247 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van Echten-Arends J et al.In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N. Engl. J. Med.357(1), 9–17 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raffan E, Semple RK. Next generation sequencing – implications for clinical practice. Br. Med. Bull.99, 53–71 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tamhankar PM, Agarwal S, Arya V et al. Prevention of homozygous beta thalassemia by premarital screening and prenatal diagnosis in India. Prenat. Diagn.29(1), 83–88 (2009). Erratum in: Prenat. Diagn.29(7), 732 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cowan RS. Moving up the slippery slope: mandated genetic screening on Cyprus. Am. J. Med. Genet. C Semin. Med. Genet.51C(1), 95–103 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Memish ZA, Saeedi MY. Six-year outcome of the national premarital screening and genetic counseling program for sickle cell disease and β-thalassemia in Saudi Arabia. Ann. Saudi Med.31(3), 229–235 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong LP, George E, Tan JA. Public perceptions and attitudes toward thalassaemia: influencing factors in a multi-racial population. BMC Public Health11, 193 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Comeau AM, Parad RB, Dorkin HL et al. Population-based newborn screening for genetic disorders when multiple mutation DNA testing is incorporated: a cystic fibrosis newborn screening model demonstrating increased sensitivity but more carrier detections. Pediatrics113(6), 1573–1581 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poulou M, Fylaktou I, Fotoulaki M et al. Cystic fibrosis genetic counseling difficulties due to the identification of novel mutations in the CFTR gene. J. Cyst. Fibros. doi:10.1016/j.jcf.2012.01.004 (2012) (Epub ahead of print).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bombieri C, Claustres M, De Boeck K et al. Recommendations for the classification of diseases as CFTR-related disorders. J. Cyst. Fibros.10(Suppl. 2), S86–S102 (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Goldsmith L, Jackson L, O’Connor A et al. Direct-to-consumer genomic testing: systematic review of the literature on user perspectives. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2012.18. (2012) (Epub ahead of print).
   Google Scholar
• Clementini E, Palka C, Iezzi I et al. Prevalence of chromosomal abnormalities in 2078 infertile couples referred for assisted reproductive techniques. Hum. Reprod.20(2), 437–442 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofherr SE, Wiktor AE, Kipp BR et al. Clinical diagnostic testing for the cytogenetic and molecular causes of male infertility: the Mayo Clinic experience. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet.28(11), 1091–1098 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van den Boogaard E, Hermens RP, Verhoeve HR et al. Selective karyotyping in recurrent miscarriage: are recommended guidelines adopted in daily clinical practice? Hum. Reprod.26(8), 1965–1970 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alviggi C, Humaidan P, Ezcurra D. Hormonal, functional and genetic biomarkers in controlled ovarian stimulation: tools for matching patients and protocols. Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol.10(1), 9 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agarwal A, Said TM. Role of sperm chromatin abnormalities and DNA damage in male infertility. Hum. Reprod. Update9(4), 331–345 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilding M, Coppola G, di Matteo L et al. Intracytoplasmic injection of morphologically selected spermatozoa (IMSI) improves outcome after assisted reproduction by deselecting physiologically poor quality spermatozoa. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet.28(3), 253–262 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Souza Setti A, Ferreira RC, Paes de Almeida Ferreira Braga D et al. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcome versus intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection outcome: a meta-analysis. Reprod. Biomed. Online21(4), 450–455 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paes de Almeida Ferreira Braga D, de Cássia Savio Figueira R, Queiroz P et al. Zona pellucida birefringence in in vivo and in vitro matured oocytes. Fertil. Steril.94(6), 2050–2053 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montag M, Köster M, van der Ven K et al. Gamete competence assessment by polarizing optics in assisted reproduction. Hum. Reprod. Update17(5), 654–666 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palermo G, Joris H, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem AC. Pregnancies after intracytoplasmic injection of single spermatozoon into an oocyte. Lancet340(8810), 17–18 (1992).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Steirteghem A. Celebrating ICSI’s twentieth anniversary and the birth of more than 2.5 million children – the ‘how, why, when and where’. Hum. Reprod.27(1), 1–2 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goossens V, De Rycke M, De Vos A et al. Diagnostic efficiency, embryonic development and clinical outcome after the biopsy of one or two blastomeres for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Hum. Reprod.23(3), 481–492 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liebaers I, Desmyttere S, Verpoest W et al. Report on a consecutive series of 581 children born after blastomere biopsy for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Hum. Reprod.25(1), 275–282 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirkegaard K, Hindkjaer JJ, Ingerslev HJ. Human embryonic development after blastomere removal: a time-lapse analysis. Hum. Reprod.27(1), 97–105 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schoolcraft WB, Treff NR, Stevens JM et al. Live birth outcome with trophectoderm biopsy, blastocyst vitrification, and single-nucleotide polymorphism microarray-based comprehensive chromosome screening in infertile patients. Fertil. Steril.96(3), 638–640 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mamas T, Gordon A, Brown A et al. Detection of aneuploidy by array comparative genomic hybridization using cell lines to mimic a mosaic trophectoderm biopsy. Fertil. Steril.97(4), 943–947 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Landuyt L, Stoop D, Verheyen G et al. Outcome of closed blastocyst vitrification in relation to blastocyst quality: evaluation of 759 warming cycles in a single-embryo transfer policy. Hum. Reprod.26(3), 527–534 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herrero L, Martínez M, Garcia-Velasco JA. Current status of human oocyte and embryo cryopreservation. Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol.23(4), 245–250 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor TH, Gilchrist JW, Hallowell SV et al. The effects of different laser pulse lengths on the embryo biopsy procedure and embryo development to the blastocyst stage. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet.27(11), 663–667 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wininger JD, Taylor TH, Orris JJ et al. Pregnancy after rebiopsy and vitrification of blastocysts following allele dropout after day 3 biopsy. Fertil. Steril.95(3), 1122.e1–2 (2011).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nel-Themaat L, Nagy ZP. A review of the promises and pitfalls of oocyte and embryo metabolomics. Placenta32(Suppl. 3), S257–S263 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sturmey RG, Hawkhead JA, Barker EA et al. DNA damage and metabolic activity in the preimplantation embryo. Hum. Reprod.24(1), 81–91 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong CC, Loewke KE, Bossert NL et al. Non-invasive imaging of human embryos before embryonic genome activation predicts development to the blastocyst stage. Nat. Biotechnol.28(10), 1115–1121 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coulam CB, Acacio B. Does immunotherapy for treatment of reproductive failure enhance live births? Am. J. Reprod. Immunol.67(4), 296–304 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bansal AS, Bajardeen B, Thum MY. The basis and value of currently used immunomodulatory therapies in recurrent miscarriage. J. Reprod. Immunol.93(1), 41–51 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang EM, Han JE, Kim YS et al. Use of the natural cycle and vitrification thawed blastocyst transfer results in better in-vitro fertilization outcomes: cycle regimens of vitrification thawed blastocyst transfer. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet.28(4), 369–374 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu D, Zhang J, Cao S et al. Vitrified–warmed blastocyst transfer cycles yield higher pregnancy and implantation rates compared with fresh blastocyst transfer cycles – time for a new embryo transfer strategy? Fertil. Steril.95(5), 1691–1695 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harper J, Magli MC, Lundin K et al. When and how should new technology be introduced into the IVF laboratory? Hum. Reprod.27(2), 303–313 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiorentino F, Biricik A, Nuccitelli A et al. Strategies and clinical outcome of 250 cycles of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for single gene disorders. Hum. Reprod.21(3), 670–684 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rechitsky S, Pomerantseva E, Pakhalchuk T et al. First systematic experience of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for de-novo mutations. Reprod. Biomed. Online22(4), 350–361 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altarescu G, Brooks B, Kaplan Y et al. Single-sperm analysis for haplotype construction of de-novo paternal mutations: application to PGD for neurofibromatosis type 1. Hum. Reprod.21(8), 2047–2051 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altarescu G, Eldar-Geva T, Varshower I et al. Real-time reverse linkage using polar body analysis for preimplantation genetic diagnosis in female carriers of de novo mutations. Hum. Reprod.24(12), 3225–3229 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kakourou G, Dhanjal S, Daphnis D. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for myotonic dystrophy type 1: detection of crossover between the gene and the linked marker APOC2. Prenat. Diagn.27(2), 111–116 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moutou C, Gardes N, Viville S. Multiplex PCR combining deltaF508 mutation and intragenic microsatellites of the CFTR gene for pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) of cystic fibrosis. Eur. J. Hum. Genet.10(4), 231–238 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piyamongkol W, Harper JC, Sherlock JK et al. A successful strategy for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of myotonic dystrophy using multiplex fluorescent PCR. Prenat. Diagn.21(3), 223–232 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harton GL, De Rycke M, Fiorentino F et al.; European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) PGD Consortium. ESHRE PGD Consortium best practice guidelines for amplification-based PGD. Hum. Reprod.26(1), 33–40 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altarescu G, Eldar Geva T, Brooks B et al. PGD on a recombinant allele: crossover between the TSC2 gene and ‘linked’ markers impairs accurate diagnosis. Prenat. Diagn.28(10), 929–933 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van de Velde H, De Rycke M, De Man C et al. The experience of two European preimplantation genetic diagnosis centres on human leukocyte antigen typing. Hum. Reprod.24(3), 732–740 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiorentino F, Kokkali G, Biricik A et al. Polymerase chain reaction-based detection of chromosomal imbalances on embryos: the evolution of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for chromosomal translocations. Fertil. Steril.94(6), 2001–2011, 2011.e1–6 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherlock J, Cirigliano V, Petrou M et al. Assessment of diagnostic quantitative fluorescent multiplex polymerase chain reaction assays performed on single cells. Ann. Hum. Genet.62(Pt 1), 9–23 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sato T, Ikuta K, Sherlock J et al. Comparison between fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and quantitative-fluorescent polymerase chain reaction (QF-PCR) for the detection of aneuploidies in single blastomeres. Prenat. Diagn.23(8), 678–684 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergen AW, Haque KA, Qi Y et al. Comparison of yield and genotyping performance of multiple displacement amplification and OmniPlex whole genome amplified DNA generated from multiple DNA sources. Hum. Mutat.26(3), 262–270 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lasken RS. Genomic DNA amplification by the multiple displacement amplification (MDA) method. Biochem. Soc. Trans.37(Pt 2), 450–453 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glentis S, SenGupta S, Thornhill A et al. Molecular comparison of single cell MDA products derived from different cell types. Reprod. Biomed. Online.19(1), 89–98 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renwick P, Trussler J, Lashwood A et al. Preimplantation genetic haplotyping: 127 diagnostic cycles demonstrating a robust, efficient alternative to direct mutation testing on single cells. Reprod. Biomed. Online.20(4), 470–476 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langmore JP. Rubicon Genomics, Inc. Pharmacogenomics3(4), 557–560 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harper JC, Harton G. The use of arrays in preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening. Fertil. Steril.94(4), 1173–1177 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Handyside AH, Harton GL, Mariani B et al. Karyomapping: a universal method for genome wide analysis of genetic disease based on mapping crossovers between parental haplotypes. J. Med. Genet.47(10), 651–658 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Treff NR, Northrop LE, Kasabwala K et al. Single nucleotide polymorphism microarray-based concurrent screening of 24-chromosome aneuploidy and unbalanced translocations in preimplantation human embryos. Fertil. Steril.95(5), 1606–1612.e1–2 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiorentino F, Spizzichino L, Bono S et al. PGD for reciprocal and Robertsonian translocations using array comparative genomic hybridization. Hum. Reprod.26(7), 1925–1935 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geraedts J, Montag M, Magli MC et al. Polar body array CGH for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte. Part I: clinical results. Hum. Reprod.26(11), 3173–3180 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bisignano A, Wells D, Harton G et al. PGD and aneuploidy screening for 24 chromosomes: advantages and disadvantages of competing platforms. Reprod. Biomed. Online23(6), 677–685 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Handyside AH. PGD and aneuploidy screening for 24 chromosomes by genome-wide SNP analysis: seeing the wood and the trees. Reprod. Biomed. Online23(6), 686–691 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harper JC, Delhanty JD. FISH in preimplantation diagnosis. Methods Mol. Med.5, 259–268 (1996).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ioannou D, Meershoek EJ, Thornhill AR et al. Multicolour interphase cytogenetics: 24 chromosome probes, 6 colours, 4 layers. Mol. Cell. Probes25(5–6), 199–205 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanneste E, Melotte C, Debrock S et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis using fluorescent in situ hybridization for cancer predisposition syndromes caused by microdeletions. Hum. Reprod.24(6), 1522–1528 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mantzouratou A, Delhanty JD. Aneuploidy in the human cleavage stage embryo. Cytogenet.Genome Res.133(2–4), 141–148 (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Treff NR, Tao X, Schillings WJ et al. Use of single nucleotide polymorphism microarrays to distinguish between balanced and normal chromosomes in embryos from a translocation carrier. Fertil. Steril.96(1), e58–e65 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steffann J, Frydman N, Gigarel N et al. Analysis of mtDNA variant segregation during early human embryonic development: a tool for successful NARP preimplantation diagnosis. J. Med. Genet.43(3), 244–247 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Unsal E, Aktaş Y, Uner O et al. Successful application of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for Leigh syndrome. Fertil. Steril.90(5), 2017.e11–13 (2008).
   Google Scholar
• Dimauro S, Davidzon G. Mitochondrial DNA and disease. Ann Med.37(3), 222–232 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poulton J, Chiaratti MR, Meirelles FV et al. Transmission of mitochondrial DNA diseases and ways to prevent them. PLoS Genet.6(8), pii: e1001066 (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Craven L, Tuppen HA, Greggains GD et al. Pronuclear transfer in human embryos to prevent transmission of mitochondrial DNA disease. Nature465(7294), 82–85 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanneste E, Voet T, Melotte C et al. What next for preimplantation genetic screening? High mitotic chromosome instability rate provides the biological basis for the low success rate. Hum. Reprod.24(11), 2679–2682 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palini S, De Stefani S, Scala V et al. Epigenetic regulatory mechanisms during preimplantation embryo development. Ann. NY Acad. Sci.1221, 54–60 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Montfoort AP, Hanssen LL, de Sutter P et al. Assisted reproduction treatment and epigenetic inheritance. Hum. Reprod. Update18(2), 171–197 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grace KS, Sinclair KD. Assisted reproductive technology, epigenetics, and long-term health: a developmental time bomb still ticking. Semin. Reprod. Med.27(5), 409–416 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kroneis T, Geigl JB, El-Heliebi A et al. Combined molecular genetic and cytogenetic analysis from single cells after isothermal whole-genome amplification. Clin. Chem.57(7), 1032–1041 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hou Y, Song L, Zhu P et al. Single-cell exome sequencing and monoclonal evolution of a JAK2-negative myeloproliferative neoplasm. Cell148(5), 873–885 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar